Sense-text model of translation

Sense - text model of translation is based on the ideas of generative semantics the supporters of which (C.J. Fillmore, J.J. Katz, etc) developed N. Chomsky’s theory. Since they investigated the regularities of the process of transforming sense into a text, they believed that a similar process takes place in an act of translation. Like generative grammar, this model distinguishes between surface and deep structures, while the latter is divided into two aspects – deep syntax and deep lexis. Deep syntax expresses content links between elements of an utterance, deep lexis includes only symbols of the so-called lexical functions which can be of two categories: equivalent substitutions (i.e. words that can substitute for the key word) and semantic parameters (that refer to expressions used with the key word to convey elementary sense). Both lexical functions are important in translation as they underlie lexical rules of paraphrasing and restructuring aimed at retaining equivalent relations between different ways of expressing the same thought. The model “sense – text” is based on the use of strictly formalized procedures which is quite justified as it contains a set of rules for machine processing a text by means of a computer. The importance of lexical functions was proved in a number of languages (see the works by E. Steier, V.Yu. Rozenzveig, A. Zholkovsky, I. Melchuk, V.G. Gak). Thus, this model draws together various surface phrases and structures associated with the same deep sense and it works well in relation to cases of lexico-syntactic paraphrasing the causes of which are manifold including:

a) structural differences between SL and TL. A.D. Shveitser gives the following example of a specific English structure which has no correspondence in Russian, Amber, destroyer of a million jobs. The phrase offers two restrictions – morphological (the Russian correspondence of job (работа) cannot be used in the Plural form) and lexico-syntactic because the Russian correspondences of the English word destroyer («уничтожать», «истреблять», «разрушать») do not combine with the word работа, hence it is necessary to look for the Russian word which satisfies this lexical function, which is «лишать». The result of this paraphrasing in translation will be «Эмбер, лишивший работы миллион человек» [Швейцер 1973].

b) Difference in the theme-rheme correlation of a SLT and a TLT, cf. На наших глазах в естественных науках произошли многие величайшие открытия – We have witnessed many breakthroughs in natural sciences.

c) Arrangement of semantic components in a lexical meaning of a key word which may have no correspondence in TL, so its components are regrouped in the process of translation, e.g. ‘In response to cries for help Dr. Richter and his staff depth-probed the situation – Откликнувшись на мольбу о помощи, д-р Рихтер и его сотрудники глубоко проанализировали ситуацию. In this sentence the English verb coined by means of conversion has been translated by means of a word combination, as respective converted verbs are not found in Russian, so its meaning is rendered by means of a verb-adverb group.